Yes.
Evidence of meeting #46 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was shareholders.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #46 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was shareholders.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
If we were to examine it five years from now, I would say going to 17% would not be a success, for example, to illustrate the point that you raised. I would say that we would also look at where we are versus our international peers. We would also look at, for example, the outcomes we achieved. How are we comparing with our international peers? Are we making meaningful progress? Do we see a trajectory and growth rate that's going in the right direction?
Those are the kinds of indications that I would be looking for to determine what success looks like. If we're moving in the right direction at a rapid pace, are we getting the right outcomes? How do we compare with other jurisdictions? Those are the types of considerations I would say would be applicable to determining what success looks like.
A modest increase would not be what success looks like.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
I will derive from the answers that, since other jurisdictions and our allies have moved to double the number over a five-year period, that would be a good target and measurable for us over the next—
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
I would say it's the bare minimum. That would be something that would definitely be reasonable, if not more. I think we can and should do better, and that's why I had the discussion with my colleague before about re-examining after five years. I think that provides an ample time period for us to examine and allow corporations, through the process of electing different boards, etc., ample opportunity to demonstrate meaningful progress. If they don't make it, then we come back, sit down, and figure out why they aren't making meaningful progress, what other tools we have, and how we continue.
There are two components, like you said. There's the target and there's also creating a culture.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
What we want to be able to promote is this culture of diversity, innovation, and inclusiveness.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
I have one more question, and I'm running out of time here.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
The innovation committee you appointed has gone around the country, done their work, and brought back a 14-page report. It was put out sometime in December. I've now given it to this committee, because it wasn't circulated to this committee.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
It was made available on the website. It was available to the entire public.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
What in there is tied specifically to this bill in terms of encouraging the number of women, or diversity overall, in boards and throughout organizations to encourage innovation?
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
I think the number one issue that was raised—and I've mentioned this before—in all the consultations with innovation leaders when we travelled the country and when we've met with businesses and different orders of government, was really the focus around talent and people.
What was clearly reflected in those findings and discussions with innovation leaders is that we need to invest in people, create an opportunity to look at lifelong learning, and look at making sure we promote diversity. That's really reflected in the feedback we received, and it's obviously reflected in the bill we're presenting. Again, it's all about promoting diversity for better business outcomes, and of course, for innovation as well.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Thank you very much.
We're going to move on to Mr. Masse.
You have seven minutes.
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for being here, Mr. Minister.
Quite frankly, the notion of a five-year review is absurd. When you look at where we are right now, with the length and duration to actually pass this legislation and get a review, and if there's a requirement to look at legislation again, the most likely date is 2023-24. Also, that's if the Parliament of that day...because there will be an election in between, which will also mean there could be an extenuation of time that goes behind the normal process so you're most likely looking at late 2024, if not 2025. Then that Parliament has to actually make it a priority and start to do that review, as well. Also, if there are amendments, then you're probably looking at another two years to get it through the Senate and passed.
Here we have a situation where 35% of women have MBAs in Canada. I know that in previous questioning you mentioned that it would be a concern for you if it went down to 17%, but we're actually at 20% right now—and nearly 21%—so that would even be a step back.
You didn't mention in your remarks that there are other options. You didn't talk about the quota systems that have been legislated in Norway and France, which have by far the two highest responses because they're not just done with a big giant push of the button, so to speak. There are working arrangements that go into those models, and you haven't mentioned those. You did mention a few other nations, and one of them is already lagging behind us.
The problem I face is that the whole issue of diversity is a made-up definition they get to have. They get that type of a luxury, which isn't often provided for employers. Especially in my background as an employer for youth at risk, for diversity, and also for persons with disabilities.... Also, persons with disabilities—by the way, if you don't know—have a 50% unemployment rate. The margins for that are just totally unacceptable, and almost none are represented on any board, given that there are just a few examples out there.
Let's go to the question I'd like to ask. Company X decides, Mr. Minister, they know now what you're going to do is comply or explain. They have basically until 2024, or more likely 2026 or 2027, depending upon whether they really know the parliamentary process. They come back and it's up 1% or 2%. What specifically can you do if they basically just say that they don't know if they'll even be around on this board again, especially with the boards that have people coming and going and where education will be a constant requirement?
I actually find this entire process quite frustrating because this is a missed opportunity. I just want to know specifically what your powers are, or those of the new minister. Most likely it won't be you, because either you'll be Prime Minister at that time—which will destroy Canadians, but anyway I'm just joking—or you'll be something else. But the probability is that another minister most likely be sitting in this situation and somebody else like myself will be sitting here asking the question. What can you then do specifically to that company?
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
First, I want to thank you for your question and your passion. I share that passion, and so do many of our colleagues at this table. We really want to see better representation at the board level, and that's why we're pursuing this piece of legislation.
To your first point with respect to the timeline of five years, I just want to highlight the fact that once this legislation is put in place we will allow companies ample time. As I mentioned, there is a shareholder democracy component to this as well, so we're going from slates to the individual election of the board, director, members, and so on.
The idea is that we will give them a few years to determine, first, what their policies are, and second, better representation. We have to give them a little bit of runway. I think a year or two might be too tight from my experience on boards, but I would like to hear your feedback on that in a few moments. I would say that we need some runway to determine what kind of progress they are making.
Second, with respect to the definition of diversity, I have a lot of confidence in market forces. If a company does a poor job of promoting diversity, it will have a negative consequence or impact on their bottom line; that's point one. Two, their peers who have a better diversity policy and better return on investment for their shareholders will be able to demonstrate that in a tangible way, and that will impact the company significantly as well.
This is not necessarily about what I can tell a company with respect to how to improve its bottom line. What I'm doing is creating a market condition where individual investors and shareholders can see that this company, for example, has a diversity policy and it really takes into account the diversity that drives innovation, growth, and a better return on investment. This other company does a very—
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
—and therefore the return on investment is very low.
I think that is a very—
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I know that, but you can't do anything under this legislation. The end result is that, basically, you're neutering yourself with this.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
No, I just explained that the comply or explain model has shown in other jurisdictions as well—
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
There's nothing you can.... Here's the thing. If market forces were so good, women in the workforce wouldn't now be earning 30% less than males.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal